Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dependent statement

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dependent statement

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This may refer to the dependent statement itself. If this article will not be subjected for deletion, then, I suggest merging or redirecting it into another major article. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 13:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a dictionary article about the phrase "dependent statement". It is a stub encyclopaedia article about the grammatical concept of dependent statements. We even have a stub category, {{ling-stub}}, for such stubs. That is what you should have applied, mere minutes after this article was created. There are, after all, plenty of grammar books, published over centuries, that document the grammatical concept of a dependent statement, in English, Latin, and Classical Greek for starters. Per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, you should have put in the effort of checking them, before coming to AFD. Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be of the same ilk as Dependent clause and other syntactic entities. Author also responsible for Long tense, in case that also needs to be considered within this AfD. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a worthwhile subject in English and other grammars that is not exhausted by this brief article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in this case perhaps it's too early a stage to make a big deal out of it, but I think that when grammatical articles like this deal only with English, it should be reflected in the article's name. Declan Clam (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that the answer to that is to expand the article's content to clarify that different languages use different constructions for this, not to restrict it to only covering this concept as applied to English. I've corrected the obviously parochial "normally by the addition of that". Phil Bridger (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the clarification, Phil.--SAT85 (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is quite right that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that hardly seems relevant to an article that belongs more properly in a grammar. One could argue that Wikipedia is not a grammar either, but some coverage of the subject is probably appropriate.
On the other hand, I'm concerned about the sourcing. Onions is a reliable source, but there should be an ISBN, a page number, and all the other required material for a proper citation, and a second source that describes the subject would certainly not go amiss.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.